sheffield_uk Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 my server is in luxenbourg and ive never had any problems... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghozer Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 You should have informed Judge Norström so, before he reached his verdict (particularly since TPB only hosted torrent links, not the copyrighted material) But thats different.... while swedens laws are that you can host material, and share it (an example is if you stream your own online radio via a swedish server you don't have to pay license fees) that doesn't mean that the copyright holders can't still chase you unless its changed in the last 2 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravity426 Posted September 8, 2009 Author Share Posted September 8, 2009 does anyone think Swedish society is inherently immoral for having such a high percentage of file-sharing internet users? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravity426 Posted September 8, 2009 Author Share Posted September 8, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7978853.stm link to story on Swedish internet traffic drop... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbladerob Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 brilliant, this debates gone from a fileshare / copyright discussion to comparing the moral's of nations! awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 But thats different.... while swedens laws are that you can host material, and share it (an example is if you stream your own online radio via a swedish server you don't have to pay license fees) that doesn't mean that the copyright holders can't still chase you It's not. Either an act is defined as an infringing act, or it's not. And either liability for that infringing act is excluded by Statute ("the law says you can infringe"), or it's not. = if the copyright owner has grounds to sue for infringement, then the infringing act cannot be excluded by Statute (or the copyright owner would have no grounds to sue) You can add to that the jurisdiction-specificity of Copyright Law: try and stream audio from your Swedish server to your WiFi radio at work in the UK, and see how far your argument carries you with the PRS (who are on the warpath at the moment, btw) my server is in luxenbourg and ive never had any problems...Well, they've very recently reneged on centuries of banking secrecy (ensconsed in their Constitution no less!), under pressure from the US, UK, Germany, France etc. after last April's G20 (US, UK, FR, DE etc had only been asking and trying for decades before ). Same as Switzerland and a select few others. So, as far as servers storing infringing material there being 'safe'... I wouldn't exactly take that to the bank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funky_Gibbon Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Actually, I moralise it by the fact that I want to listen to something before I buy it. Most of it remains unbought, but also never again listened to again. No one loses anything. But every thing that I do listen to, like and subsequently buy, after borrowing a copy from a friend, downloading, etc, is a purchase I would never have made had I not broke some sort of copyright rules. Very good point about never listening again to most songs that are downloaded. The industries no doubt count each as a 'lost' sale but you're correct that in most cases it's someone downloading a song to see what it sounds like and then deleting it when they decide they don't like it. Very few people now will buy music completely blind unless they are fans of the band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antics^^ Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Funny how they keep producing cheaper cd/dvd media and burners for everybody to download...and keep making broadband faster... Then say `dont download` People have been known to download legally you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antics^^ Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 in sweden it's legal to host anything you like and offer it for downloading, the laws on copyrighted material is VERY lax in sweden. Lax copyright laws, beautiful blonde women. I'm off, cya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Very good point about never listening again to most songs that are downloaded. The industries no doubt count each as a 'lost' sale but you're correct that in most cases it's someone downloading a song to see what it sounds like and then deleting it when they decide they don't like it.I believe Mojai had this point spot on in his earlier post: The copyright holders have done a bang up job in convincing governments that every download is a lost sale. In reality, most people just download media because it's convenient; if you clamp down on this it does not mean people are going to rush to the record store/game store/video store and buy everything that they were downloading, most people won't even buy a fraction of it.Come to think of it for 2 secs, is it any different to donning the earphones to sample a few albums at HMV? I suppose it is, to the extent that downloaders get a full 'working' copy (so what is the incentive to go down to HMV and buy the medium?) But if a non-trivial portion of downloaders use it in the way of the above analogy (download/sample/buy), then it's simply a case of displacing the sampling environment/mechanics. It would explain, in part, the academic/economic findings that downloaders tend to buy more than non-downloaders, and the current perceived drop in torrents/growing success of Spotify Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.